UJRefugees.net

Not much actual evidence in the whole case against Sandusky.. stories constantly changing.. FBI agents disagreeing with the outcome.. Prosecution relied predominantly on "repressed memory testimony" which isn't considered to be an actual science.

Being from PA myself, I remember when this story hit headlines.. seemed like he was found guilty before ever stepping foot in a court room.. I just remember hearing the shower story of some guy walking in on him plugging some 10 year old's butt. That was enough for me to think he should be fried.. turns out that guy's story has more holes that all the butts Sandusky supposedly plugged.

Accusers who initially claimed to have never been abused, lined up to change their stories once Penn State started writing $10 million checks.

Lots of unanswered questions..


Thoughts?

Sometimes to make an omelet you gotta fuck a few kids.

i think it probably just comes down to whether or not you are okay with sexually victimizing children. Wouldn't you all agree?

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:23 pm

WikiFuhrer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:15 pm Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

Wait a second now Hammy, Jacko has nothing to do with this, stick with the topic on hand.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:35 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:33 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:23 pm

WikiFuhrer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:15 pm Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

Not a single independent witness saw him sexually abusing a boy. Not one

No it wasn't one, it was two.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower?

Why would you possibly need to evade that question? The man admitted to showering naked with and hugging young boys. Are you so committed to your contrarian position that you can't even admit to seeing this?

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:07 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:03 pm i think it probably just comes down to whether or not you are okay with sexually victimizing children. Wouldn't you all agree?

Nonsense. The case against Sandusky was based solely on emotion, not actual evidence

I have the exact same opinion as Biker. The whole thing stunk. Trashing Paterno's 60 year reputation. Looking back, it was the like the opening salvo of the whole "Guilty until proven innocent" BS agenda. "I was a victim decades ago" but never reported it but now I see a chance for paychecks crap.

He used to shower naked with children. He still does but he used to too.

There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:37 pm Wait a second now Hammy, Jacko has nothing to do with this, stick with the topic on hand.

Jacko raped children. His defenders are just like biker and make basically the same arguments, they just have a different subject. That's why it is relevant. Contrarianism makes people feel smart and special, and if they aren't smart or capable of basic evidence based reasoning, it can lead them down the rabbit hole where no evidence counts because it all has to be filtered through their starting conclusion.

Jacko fans excuse him sharing a bed with children because he was just a big innocent child himself. Watch biker now defend sandusky showering naked with little boys who he hugged. Or continue to ignore it. It's the same pathology, contrarians can't think their way past a starting conclusion. People who question everything are scientists, contrarians are people who question the occasional thing but can't actually figure out how to process the answers. Holocaust denial, basically any conspiracy theory, this, it's the same common mental defect. Jacko and his kiddy fiddling and the people who still to this day defend it is just the closest example.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:40 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:38 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:35 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:33 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:23 pm

WikiFuhrer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:15 pm Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

Not a single independent witness saw him sexually abusing a boy. Not one

No it wasn't one, it was two.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower?

Why would you possibly need to evade that question? The man admitted to showering naked with and hugging young boys. Are you so committed to your contrarian position that you can't even admit to seeing this?

Yes, I am aware. He spent time in his youth in an all boys home and that sort of thing was completely natural and normal to him

So you think it's natural and normal for a grown man to shower naked with young boys and hug them. Wow.

When blind adherence to your starting conclusion has forced you to state things like that, it may be time to reevaluate your starting conclusion, sicko.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:07 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:03 pm i think it probably just comes down to whether or not you are okay with sexually victimizing children. Wouldn't you all agree?

Nonsense. The case against Sandusky was based solely on emotion, not actual evidence

Cosby, Weinstien, the list gets longer by the year.

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Why is there no video?! Good point. Everyone definitely had camera phones in the early 2000s.

especially in the shower.

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:51 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:07 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:03 pm i think it probably just comes down to whether or not you are okay with sexually victimizing children. Wouldn't you all agree?

Nonsense. The case against Sandusky was based solely on emotion, not actual evidence

I have the exact same opinion as Biker. The whole thing stunk. Trashing Paterno's 60 year reputation. Looking back, it was the like the opening salvo of the whole "Guilty until proven innocent" BS agenda. "I was a victim decades ago" but never reported it but now I see a chance for paychecks crap.

We aren't talking about Paterno, we're talking about Sandusky, a man repeatedly accused of abusing young boys over the years and eventually convicted of abusing young boys.

As I said at the start, it was the extension into punishing people who didn't do the abuse but could/should have stopped it earlier that got the contrarians and conspiracy nuts involved. If they'd never gone after Paterno no one would be defending the convicted paedophile.

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Perhaps not, but not to the degree of actually raping said kid. This guy has a life sentence for banging kids up the ass, no?

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:55 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Perhaps not, but not to the degree of actually raping said kid. This guy has a life sentence for banging kids up the ass, no?

Based on evidence that he did in fact bang them up the ass, yes. His penchant for showering naked with young boys is supporting evidence, but the main reason for bringing it up is to force biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys, which he has duly done. I think it's important to warn the forum, some people here have kids.

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:57 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:55 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Perhaps not, but not to the degree of actually raping said kid. This guy has a life sentence for banging kids up the ass, no?

Based on evidence that he did in fact bang them up the ass, yes. His penchant for showering naked with young boys is supporting evidence, but the main reason for bringing it up is to force biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys, which he has duly done. I think it's important to warn the forum, some people here have kids.

TBH I really didn't follow the case very closely but if there is clear and unequivocal evidence that he was banging kids up the ass than I'm fine with him doing his life sentence. Also, let that be a clear warning message to others thinking about doing something like, like biker.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:01 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:00 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:57 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:55 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Perhaps not, but not to the degree of actually raping said kid. This guy has a life sentence for banging kids up the ass, no?

Based on evidence that he did in fact bang them up the ass, yes. His penchant for showering naked with young boys is supporting evidence, but the main reason for bringing it up is to force biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys, which he has duly done. I think it's important to warn the forum, some people here have kids.

TBH I really didn't follow the case very closely but if there is clear and unequivocal evidence that he was banging kids up the ass than I'm fine with him doing his life sentence. Also, let that be a clear warning message to others thinking about doing something like, like biker.

English, hodor, English

Whatever. Hey Biker, since you're convinced that he was wrongfully convicted maybe you can start an official protest. WTC and others here are already on your side. This could go places.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:07 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:04 pm Whatever. Hey Biker, since you're convinced that he was wrongfully convicted maybe you can start an official protest. WTC and others here are already on your side. This could go places.

The evidence, or lack there of, makes it clear that Sandusky is innocent. Jacko on the other hand is guilty as fuck

Jacko had the bling to pay everyone off.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:12 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:08 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:07 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:04 pm Whatever. Hey Biker, since you're convinced that he was wrongfully convicted maybe you can start an official protest. WTC and others here are already on your side. This could go places.

The evidence, or lack there of, makes it clear that Sandusky is innocent. Jacko on the other hand is guilty as fuck

Jacko had the bling to pay everyone off.

So to be clear, you think Sandusky is guilty?

I'd have to be part of the jury to give you a definitive answer. I was on a jury for several weeks for a murder trial in Paterson NJ. All I can tell you is I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. The last thing I would want to do is be part of a wrongful conviction. I really don't know enough about the Sandusky trial to give my opinion on him specifically though.

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:00 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:57 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:55 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm

FreakShowFanatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm There's a big difference between hugging a kid and fucking him up the ass. He was proven to have hugged kids but not the latter, just like jacko.

Picture for a moment you have a young son, he comes home and tells you his gym teacher showered naked with him and gave him a soapy naked hug, but didn't fuck him up the arse.

Cool?

Perhaps not, but not to the degree of actually raping said kid. This guy has a life sentence for banging kids up the ass, no?

Based on evidence that he did in fact bang them up the ass, yes. His penchant for showering naked with young boys is supporting evidence, but the main reason for bringing it up is to force biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys, which he has duly done. I think it's important to warn the forum, some people here have kids.

TBH I really didn't follow the case very closely but if there is clear and unequivocal evidence that he was banging kids up the ass than I'm fine with him doing his life sentence. Also, let that be a clear warning message to others thinking about doing something like, like biker.

Clear as it gets in a case like that without actual video. Eight victims testified, and did in fact remember without 'repressed memory therapy', two separate adult employees testified to witnessing abuse and reporting it at the time. I guess biker is just keen to defend the right of a grown man to hug little boys while naked and alone with them in the shower. It's perfectly normal you know.

letter from Sandusky to one of the boys he abused wrote: I know that I have made my share of mistakes.

However I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart.

My wish is that you care and have love in your heart. Love never ends. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

I believe that it can overcome all things!

With love,

Jer

Just the kind of letter biker would write to a young boy he showered with naked I guess. All perfectly normal the guy got framed.

Biker wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:23 pm Do you know that the boy in the shower invited Sandusky to his wedding and his high school graduation? Do you also know that he lived with Sandusky after high school for three months? Or are you aware that the shower boy also drove to North Carolina for Sandusky's mother's funeral? No, Im sure you havent Wikied that yet

Wow, it's almost like abusers who groom children build relationships with them or something isn't it.

Could you explain why you think Jacko is guilty when the children he abused, and in some cases their families, had such close relationships with him that continued even after the abuse?